After reading a certain few people's ignorant posts questioning sound science, i wanted to post something a little different:

So, How many of you have observed pathogenic effects of religious thought?could it be that this kind of thinking evolved to give confidence to the early man, and now that we have progressed to this point, we are observing some pathogenic effects of this thinking "gone astray" i.e. extremists/terrorists

could it be that religious thoughts, or certain thoughts in general can be created and passed along and "take over" the minds of people, much like a virus? this is certainly a possibility given the accounts of people "changed" into religious zealots?

could it be that religious thought was a useful tool that we evolved and now it is only causing harm through extremist violence, dividing people along idealistic lines, and bringing injustice and crime in the name of "god"?

have geneticists found the "god locus" that houses the genes that cause people to believe in god? i can't wait, because then we can start screening our children from inheriting it, and how about people already born with it? have we located the "god section" of the brain? i hope so, because then we can cure people of religion through brain surgery, the future is bright!

Well, religion as a gene I doubt it. But you could explore the meme theory suggested by Dawkins that would be relevant here. Although it can be discussed how much the meme theory can be trusted and/or extended. Interesting but I am not sure how true it can be.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

Eugenics is "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."[2]

Eugenics is "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."[2]

many here want see whats wrong with that but many regard it as pathologicalwe also have the sterilization of mentally ill girls

The legal framework regulating sterilisation of children in Australia was set out by the High Court in Marion's Case in 1992. It sought to ensure heightened accountability in decision making in an area where children are at significant risk of grave abuse of their fundamental human right to bodily integrity. It held that:

how abput biologists placing plant genes into animals or animal genes into plants

many here want see whats wrong with that but many regard it as pathological

and how about the testing of atom bombs biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction

I believe most everyone these days would say forced eugenics is morally wrong. Probably some people see no problem with a voluntary eugenics experiment. But I personally think this would be unfair (probably immoral) on the children, because it does not guarantee a loving mother father figure environment (this is not a knock against single parents).

As far as gene transfer--why would someone want to mix plant and animal genes? Just to see if you could? Seems cruel to the organism it might produce or potentially dangerous.

Bottom line true science is knowledge and research, so it's neutral. It's what you do with the knowledge that's good or evil. Now in the systemof modern science there may be a few scientists that may have unsavory or immoral agendas, or may be working for someone who does.

I'm not going to judge anyone, but most of us who believe scripture--we try to judge "things" that go on in church as whether they are "scriptural" first. The only people you see falling down in scripture is 1)Daniel in the presence of an archangel--saying the strength was drained from him. But the angel touched him and strengthened him. 2) It happened with Jesus in Gethsemane when the soldiers came to arrest him, they (book of John)"went back and fell to the ground..." But this may have been because they expected a fight from his disciples--not really clear.

All other miracles in the scriptural accounts were usually 1)beneficial to man (unless a judgment), 2) served a distinct purpose and 3)what the scripture calls "glorified God..." which means gave evidence of his Spirit at work--defying natural explanation.

could it be that religious thoughts, or certain thoughts in general can be created and passed along and "take over" the minds of people, much like a virus?

If God is a god of order, which if the universe shows order, would show that whatever or whoever created it is orderly and sane. It would not make sense that he would have his followers act insane. If He created life, it would not follow that he would have his followers destroy life.

Therefore from a standpoint of logic alone there are three logical possibilites:

1)There is no God or no god who actively intervenes nor communicates with his creation, and these are man initiated actions, based on man made beliefs.

2)There is a God who intervenes and communicates with his creation, and these are man initiated actions, based on man made beliefs.

3)There is a God who intervenes and communicates with his creation, and these actions are a result of yielding to other spiritual entities which are opposed to the god of creation, who have intention to confuse and blind.

You are quite correct Mr. Astus. I was oversimplifying things in the logic mode.

I will be as brief as I can, if you would bear with me, I hope this will at least give some explanation whether it is believed or not, and I am not trying to be dogmatic.

Background Some theologians call the Old Testament another dispensation, which is a period of time where God progressively reveals himself to man through various means. In the dispensation of law (OT) God dealt with Israel exclusively. During this time, God reveals himself to Israel as Judge and Lawgiver, and His nature as being that of Holiness.

In contrast to Richard Dawkins' portrayal of a bloodthirsty ogre god-- The people in the land that the Jews conquered were being judged by God. These peoples did human (many of them children) sacrifice among other things--the God of the OT hates the shedding of "innocent blood..." the scripture calls it. The scripture says that their iniquity was to the full which means that God basically had had enough of their grotesque sin over a long period of time and their time was up. This was a one time way of dealing in judgement with one situation in another dispensation of time. Another example would be the flood, but God does not continue to bring global floods.

The New Testament is a dispensation in which God reveals himself to all men (not just Israel) through His Son as a God of grace, love and truth. He now deals with men in a different manner.

Under this dispensation (of grace), God does not "holy war" infidels, so the crusades were done in ignorance of scripture.

Bottom Line--The scripture OT and NT condemns murder, but it does not condemn self defense, capital punishment for serious crimes such as murder, and it does not condemn law enforcement or the military. There are more reasons for this than just making up laws--it has to do with the fallen state of man, social peace and order, and justice.

If the hypothesis is that religion is genetic and as such a genetic disease: I don't really see how individual beliefs matter; only historical fact. Regardless of your faith, other faiths have done harm in one form or another.

The question is: has more harm been done than good? Only then could it be looked at as a disease.

Of course we'll also need to pinpoint the genes that control our disposition for religiousity

What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"

There does seem to be certain people who are more prone to accept religion. You have those strange cults that commit suicide. Certain people are drawn to these. These people seem to already have some kind of mental handicap in the first place.

I'm just speculating based on what I've seen.I used to be a Mormon. I was raised in this religion from birth. I stayed in that religious mindset or "world" until I was 22.Some kind of paradigm shift happened to me that failed to occur with my peers. From that observation there seems to be some totally sane people who are prone to accepting religion more readily.

Any other suggestions would be great, I might be stereotyping, but I've been stuck in religion before.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.Thomas H. Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.